There is an idea in programming that is relatively new and really bad, it goes like this:
Don't reinvent the wheel.
As appealing as it sounds, there are many reasons this idea just sucks. The most important one being that modern technology is only possible because we did indeed reinvent the wheel, several times.
The very first wheels were likely wooden cart wheels, the only similarity they have to modern wheels is that they are round. The only similarity between the millions of different modern wheels is that they too are round.
Each new wheel is a reinvention of the previous ones, it is not simply an improvement. Someone took the idea of a wheel then worked to make that idea help in a completely new way, from gears to steering apparatuses, each one is a unique invention that uses the same idea as the original wheel.
This is also how successful applications are, they are reinventions or all new. Redundant applications, ones that are identical to older ones, never succeed.
This is how all reality works, you see it in nature, the chemical reactions we call life are reinvented every generation. Ideals are the same as well, a fact that is ignored or even denied by religious people.
Ideology is often founded on very bad ideas, notions and prejudices of a primitive mind incapable of understanding the world, the universe, around them. The time when religions are born their ideals sound great, slavery and genocide are merely self defense.
As time progresses we reinvent our ideals, slavery and genocide are not justifiable and were just bad ideas of a primitive mind. Religion, however, opposes this because it proves that their old ideals are barbaric and unjustifiable.
So, like the original wagon wheel, these bad ideals are replaced by better ideals in societies that choose to advance. Sadly there are societies that refuse to move forward, they refuse to use the reinvented wheel just because they are fooled into thinking the old one is comfortable.
A great thinker, who has a few problems of his own, once said that evolution was the greatest show on Earth. He was mistaken, for it is the greatest show in reality.
Our ideals must evolve, we must reinvent them in order to discover what is truly a perfect set of ideals or we will, inevitably, destroy our minds and then our selves.
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2015
Sunday, December 14, 2014
It's My Birthday - A Simple Challenge to Creationists
I have often stated that when you cannot grasp basic science but want to wear the uniform, become a doctor. The alternative is to become a creationist but everyone already knows they're idiots.
Both use science without ever truly understanding it, the difference is that doctors are less inclined to deny scientific advances. Not that doctors are all intelligent or better than creationists, just those in countries where religion is not an acceptable reason for allowing a patient to suffer and die, like they are allowed to do in the USA.
The creationists keep reciting the same tired, debunked, and ignorant arguments that use to be hilarious. Now they are just sad and pitiful. The reason is because none of them seem to have learned anything after 1983.
That was the last year any respectable scientists ever claimed that mutations are all detrimental. The reason being, we have discovered many mutations in many species that have resulted in them being more fit for their environment, including us.
In 1998 they discovered a specific sequence of genes responsible for HIV resistance in some human populations. In 1997 we discovered that blue eye and blond hair is caused by a rare mutation in the human genome, rare because it is even less likely to pass to offspring.
From the discovery of nylonase to algae capable of absorbing toxic waste produced only by humans, the list of recently discovered genetic mutations with hugely beneficial effects is continually growing.
So the creationists attempt to dismiss these by calling them adaptation instead of evolution, which is just sad. Adaptation is the result of natural selection acting on the phenomenon of evolution, in other words, adaptation is the result of evolution.
But here's a challenge to creationists, I have no reward to offer other than to agree with you should you succeed in this task. Provide evidence of any species willfully altering their genetic make up, resulting in a specific adaptation to a specific and known environmental change.
Now this challenge is twofold, though I doubt you will succeed at either step. I know creationists have a problem with sequential problem solving and the very definition of evidence, so I will describe the two steps more clearly.
The first step requires you provide evidence, meaning facts that require no interpretation which suggest the phenomenon. The word "phenomenon" is really a catch all in science, it describes and event, occurrence, object, person, fact, law, or basically any noun that is within our reality.
Thus you must show how the organism is aware of the change and able to discern what the change is and what is required to better fit the change. If you cannot present evidence suggesting this, you cannot have failed the challenge, without this recognition there can be no intent and thus no possible way the organism can adapt without random mutations.
Now, given the unlikely event that you have succeeded at the first step, the second step is one that biology has proven cannot occur a very long time ago, but I grant the benefit of doubt. You must provide evidence than any organism can alter their DNA at will, and that the changes will affect the organism immediately, prior to their demise.
Now the catch, you must also provide evidence that the theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict this phenomenon. I know none of you will ever succeed at this challenge, as it requires you to study actual science before presenting anything, and the catch means you must study the theory of evolution completely, or you will miss the explanation.
Should a creationist take this challenge and succeed, I will concede that the theory of evolution is incomplete. The fun fact is this: it does not mean your religious myths are any more correct as there are many such myths just as credible and other scientific explanations that are far more credible than creationism.
Both use science without ever truly understanding it, the difference is that doctors are less inclined to deny scientific advances. Not that doctors are all intelligent or better than creationists, just those in countries where religion is not an acceptable reason for allowing a patient to suffer and die, like they are allowed to do in the USA.
The creationists keep reciting the same tired, debunked, and ignorant arguments that use to be hilarious. Now they are just sad and pitiful. The reason is because none of them seem to have learned anything after 1983.
That was the last year any respectable scientists ever claimed that mutations are all detrimental. The reason being, we have discovered many mutations in many species that have resulted in them being more fit for their environment, including us.
In 1998 they discovered a specific sequence of genes responsible for HIV resistance in some human populations. In 1997 we discovered that blue eye and blond hair is caused by a rare mutation in the human genome, rare because it is even less likely to pass to offspring.
From the discovery of nylonase to algae capable of absorbing toxic waste produced only by humans, the list of recently discovered genetic mutations with hugely beneficial effects is continually growing.
So the creationists attempt to dismiss these by calling them adaptation instead of evolution, which is just sad. Adaptation is the result of natural selection acting on the phenomenon of evolution, in other words, adaptation is the result of evolution.
But here's a challenge to creationists, I have no reward to offer other than to agree with you should you succeed in this task. Provide evidence of any species willfully altering their genetic make up, resulting in a specific adaptation to a specific and known environmental change.
Now this challenge is twofold, though I doubt you will succeed at either step. I know creationists have a problem with sequential problem solving and the very definition of evidence, so I will describe the two steps more clearly.
The first step requires you provide evidence, meaning facts that require no interpretation which suggest the phenomenon. The word "phenomenon" is really a catch all in science, it describes and event, occurrence, object, person, fact, law, or basically any noun that is within our reality.
Thus you must show how the organism is aware of the change and able to discern what the change is and what is required to better fit the change. If you cannot present evidence suggesting this, you cannot have failed the challenge, without this recognition there can be no intent and thus no possible way the organism can adapt without random mutations.
Now, given the unlikely event that you have succeeded at the first step, the second step is one that biology has proven cannot occur a very long time ago, but I grant the benefit of doubt. You must provide evidence than any organism can alter their DNA at will, and that the changes will affect the organism immediately, prior to their demise.
Now the catch, you must also provide evidence that the theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict this phenomenon. I know none of you will ever succeed at this challenge, as it requires you to study actual science before presenting anything, and the catch means you must study the theory of evolution completely, or you will miss the explanation.
Should a creationist take this challenge and succeed, I will concede that the theory of evolution is incomplete. The fun fact is this: it does not mean your religious myths are any more correct as there are many such myths just as credible and other scientific explanations that are far more credible than creationism.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Science Deniers - Pitiful Empty Creatures
One of the greatest tools we have created is the one we call science, as it benefits everyone, even those who deny it. Speaking on science deniers, the two most heinous and prolific ones are those who try to oppose evolution and climate change.
The problem is jot that they disagree with a notion mentioned by the people who research these things, it's that neither know what they are even opposing yet present their opposition as if it's a well thought out argument. The reality is that these so called arguments are less than laughable, they are an embarrassment to the entire animal kingdom that we are part of.
Now, there are some climate change supporters who are also completely clueless, but that is another topic. The climate change is not itself a crisis, but when the media mentions it they are neglecting the rest of what they are truly attempting, and failing, to report on.
The problem that climatologists have noticed is an erratic and unexplainable variation of the expected climate change. One which correlates to human population growth increases caused by industrialization.
In other words, after eliminating the impossible, the most probable cause is our species, no matter how much we deny it. Industrialization was a great thing, it has allowed us to live much longer before, but like all good things, we must be careful when using it and work to avoid problems caused by the benefits.
Typically correlation does not equal causation, this is why the climatologists are still making certain they have eliminated all possible causes before announcing one as being definitive. A fact both sides ignore.
Catastrophic climate change deniers are the easy one to address, the morons who deny evolution are more complex, and thus I will be unable to address every point in one post. Denying evolution happens is denying a fact, unless you can present a better word for "a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations."
The core problem with those who deny evolution is that none of them even know what evolution is and often describe some caricaturization fed to them by scammers out to make a profit on their stupidity and laziness. The vast majority will cite religion as an alternative, the religion they have been sold to them by atheists who have so little empathy that they are willing to take advantage of those who are too lazy to learn anything, most often we call these scammers preachers or priests.
A perfect example of such a scammer is Kent Hovind, he even has the police record to prove it. Go ahead, look it up, this article is going nowehere.
Evolution deniers will often ask for "missing links," and when they do you can rest assured that they know nothing about evolution or biology, and less about genetics than a high school student in any civilized country. Asking for punctuations in a spectrum where there are no inherent boundaries with which to define such is extremely dishonest, and precisely what these poor fools have been told to ask for because the scammers who are taking their money know you cannot provide what never existed.
This idea of links and punctuations in biology lead then to think evolution is some form of cartoonish morphing or some other nonsense that would actually challenge the all theories of biology, including evolution. This is another tactic used by the scammers we call priests, ask for something that would destroy a theory as proof of said theory as a means of ensuring that if said evidence were presented they could then point out that the theory was wrong because of it.
Another very common spoonfed tactic is to redefine words used by others so as to make them appear to contradict the facts. If this tactic is used it is certain you are dealing with a scammer themselves, keep them talking if it's on a public forum as eventually even the least intelligent person will begin to see the dishonesty of the scammer.
The truly sad fact that deniers illustrate is that scammers are correct, there is a fool born every second, a wise person born only once a month. Take pity on them, but do not expect much for they are really just insecure and lonely, and so they seek out the popular clubs to forget how hollow and empty their lives truly are.
The problem is jot that they disagree with a notion mentioned by the people who research these things, it's that neither know what they are even opposing yet present their opposition as if it's a well thought out argument. The reality is that these so called arguments are less than laughable, they are an embarrassment to the entire animal kingdom that we are part of.
Now, there are some climate change supporters who are also completely clueless, but that is another topic. The climate change is not itself a crisis, but when the media mentions it they are neglecting the rest of what they are truly attempting, and failing, to report on.
The problem that climatologists have noticed is an erratic and unexplainable variation of the expected climate change. One which correlates to human population growth increases caused by industrialization.
In other words, after eliminating the impossible, the most probable cause is our species, no matter how much we deny it. Industrialization was a great thing, it has allowed us to live much longer before, but like all good things, we must be careful when using it and work to avoid problems caused by the benefits.
Typically correlation does not equal causation, this is why the climatologists are still making certain they have eliminated all possible causes before announcing one as being definitive. A fact both sides ignore.
Catastrophic climate change deniers are the easy one to address, the morons who deny evolution are more complex, and thus I will be unable to address every point in one post. Denying evolution happens is denying a fact, unless you can present a better word for "a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations."
The core problem with those who deny evolution is that none of them even know what evolution is and often describe some caricaturization fed to them by scammers out to make a profit on their stupidity and laziness. The vast majority will cite religion as an alternative, the religion they have been sold to them by atheists who have so little empathy that they are willing to take advantage of those who are too lazy to learn anything, most often we call these scammers preachers or priests.
A perfect example of such a scammer is Kent Hovind, he even has the police record to prove it. Go ahead, look it up, this article is going nowehere.
Evolution deniers will often ask for "missing links," and when they do you can rest assured that they know nothing about evolution or biology, and less about genetics than a high school student in any civilized country. Asking for punctuations in a spectrum where there are no inherent boundaries with which to define such is extremely dishonest, and precisely what these poor fools have been told to ask for because the scammers who are taking their money know you cannot provide what never existed.
This idea of links and punctuations in biology lead then to think evolution is some form of cartoonish morphing or some other nonsense that would actually challenge the all theories of biology, including evolution. This is another tactic used by the scammers we call priests, ask for something that would destroy a theory as proof of said theory as a means of ensuring that if said evidence were presented they could then point out that the theory was wrong because of it.
Another very common spoonfed tactic is to redefine words used by others so as to make them appear to contradict the facts. If this tactic is used it is certain you are dealing with a scammer themselves, keep them talking if it's on a public forum as eventually even the least intelligent person will begin to see the dishonesty of the scammer.
The truly sad fact that deniers illustrate is that scammers are correct, there is a fool born every second, a wise person born only once a month. Take pity on them, but do not expect much for they are really just insecure and lonely, and so they seek out the popular clubs to forget how hollow and empty their lives truly are.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The Actual Definition of Biological Evolution
Here it is, an end to the lies and rumors, I will define what biological evolution is and give away the greatest secret scientists have been keeping from the general public. But first, let's look at what biological evolution is not.
Biological evolution is not morphing, one species does not turn into another species in any way. If such a thing did happen most biological theories would have to be radically altered to account for something which defies even the theory of evolution.
Many series of fiction use evolution to describe morphing, usually because the creators did not know better or it just had better response from the target audience. Such a genetic change in an organism would cause the body to be overtaken by cancerous tumors, the physiology would be so chaotic that organs would fail and poisons would be produced instead of the necessary chemicals.
Transitional forms do not look like one organism with the traits of two distinct organisms. I say "look" to mean appear, most small changes would have no change in the organism's appearance. A small change in the DNA is up to several hundred genetic changes, compound/colony species such as humans can and will have more than single celled animals.
In human DNA, upwards of five hundred changes in the DNA will result in less than 0.001% difference in the genetic make up. Each offspring has several hundred mutations in their DNA, most have absolutely no effect either because those markers are "switched off" or the new chemical produced has no effect on the cells.
When a marker or chromosome is "switched off" it means the DNA has a chemical bound to that location which prevents it from acting as a template for other chemicals. DNA is actually pretty simple to understand, it's like a chemical template, that attracts other chemicals in a sequence that causes them to bond then separate and react with other chemicals. The effects of these chemicals are the complex part of genetics, one that we are still working out.
Biological evolution is not one species giving birth to another completely different species. The number of changes required for this would result in a cancerous tumor instead of an offspring. We're talking about at least 1% of the DNA changing before an organism can even be almost another species, many species are separated by more than a 2% difference and can still breed with each other.
What actually defines the species barrier is virtually arbitrary, it depends on the species and how many different single celled organisms make it's whole. The chemicals produced by the DNA interactions determine the compatibility for producing offspring, not the DNA itself. Each cell is made up of chemicals produced by DNA, and incompatible cells, ie chemicals, cannot mingle.
Now, for the moment you have all been reading for, I shall unveil the true definition of biological evolution that is used by the highest levels of academia and scientific research. Be ready to make note of this momentous occasion for you may not likely ever read it again.
Biological Evolution: the change of frequencies of allele within in population.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Evolution and Why There Are Still Things
Can we stop with the whole "why are there no monkeys turning into humans" and "why are there still monkeys" arguments? Please, it is pathetic now. These kind of arguments only demonstrate a complete lack of education and tell us that you are not interested in facts.
The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.
Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.
Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.
The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.
This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.
The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.
Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.
Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.
The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.
This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)